January 19, 2018, 01:38:39 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Want a t-shirt? Check out our awesome Axis & Allies .org T-Shirt Store! Search me
  Articles  
   Home   Help Login Register AACalc  
Loading
Pages: « 1 2
  Print  
Author Topic: Unofficial spring '42 league  (Read 8457 times)
Herr KaLeun
A&A.org Submarine
*
****
Posts: 583


Blessent mon coeur d'une langueur monotone


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: April 30, 2011, 12:23:57 am »
0

Ah, Granada made the same points but didn't need all my wordiness.  smiley

Anyway, like I said, I have an idea on how to do this if you're interested.
Logged
The Dessert Fox
A&A.org Destroyer
*****
Posts: 1615



View Profile
« Reply #16 on: April 30, 2011, 01:00:03 am »
0

actually you can only gain points if you have rating 80 or lower from losing to a 40 rated player
Logged
Bunnies P Wrath
A&A.org Bomber
*****
Posts: 2142


Fear the Wrath of P


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: April 30, 2011, 03:30:02 am »
0

1.  The point changes count be calculated by computer instead of manually.

2.  I think each "match" should consist of two games, with a player playing BOTH Axis and Allies.  A win and a loss would count as a draw; two wins a win, two losses a loss.  This is to eliminate any bias from Axis or Allies being more powerful, and would help determine if there *is* a bias.  (If Axis win 75% of games in a large sample of first out of two games played, Axis might have an advantage) & so on.
Logged
Granada
A&A.org Artillery
**
Posts: 125


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: April 30, 2011, 05:22:01 am »
0

1.  The point changes count be calculated by computer instead of manually.

In the perfect world, surely. The best would be of course if it is directly included in the TripleA software. But before we get there I donīt think there is a way to get this done in any different way, then just count it and publish a new complete ladder after every single game.

2.  I think each "match" should consist of two games, with a player playing BOTH Axis and Allies.  A win and a loss would count as a draw; two wins a win, two losses a loss.  This is to eliminate any bias from Axis or Allies being more powerful, and would help determine if there *is* a bias.  (If Axis win 75% of games in a large sample of first out of two games played, Axis might have an advantage) & so on.

Bunny, please, dont make it more complex then it is necessary. People can always agree to play a revange game with altered sides.  That is what we did with Packers. Moreover, in the rules suggested by Zhuk, there is the bid option. I would say Allies and Axis is a bit like black and white pieces in the chess.

But what do you people think of the 16 points a game counting system I suggested based on the experience with the FICS (Free Internet Chess Server)? Would not this be the easiest way for us to go before there is an official ladder?

Logged
Bunnies P Wrath
A&A.org Bomber
*****
Posts: 2142


Fear the Wrath of P


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: May 01, 2011, 08:22:09 am »
0

Regardless, the game winner should report whether Axis or Allies were used by the winner, if a bid, to whom and for how much, and whether Low Luck or dice - that, and date.  Tracking these statistics by player matchup is the only thing that's going to support claims that Axis or Allies have an advantage, and we may as well keep good records considering it isn't much more trouble.

@Granada:  Re:  "publishing a new complete ladder" - what's the rush, Gran?   Sounds like you really wanna get moving on this!  Also, what was that about a "perfect world"?  I think you meant to reprimand me for something, but I'm afraid I missed your meaning.

As far as FICS or whatnot - I'm TOTALLY AGAINST IT.  Weak players will be very popular as stronger players try to boost their ratings, and stronger players will have a harder time finding opponents.  Any rating system that always rewards a winner with points risks this happening.

'Far as I know, XBox did some serious statistical ratings research - they put out a paper that I read a month or so ago for fun, can't remember too much of the specifics.  IMO FIDE stuff is in the right direction, or at least a system that doesn't ALWAYS reward the winner with points.  But I will say that I heard there are better system than FIDE's (wouldn't know personally, as I don't track rating systems, so maybe someone more familiar with that sort of thing can comment), and I have heard that chess players game FIDE's system.  (Although with chess politics the way they are, I'm not sure if I'd blame the rating system or politics or both.)
Logged
Herr KaLeun
A&A.org Submarine
*
****
Posts: 583


Blessent mon coeur d'une langueur monotone


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: May 01, 2011, 09:04:36 am »
0

Improvements to the chess rating system are indeed being discussed. I'm going to live dangerously and post a link, hoping that it won't be considered spamming: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6687

It's totally possible to set up a system that will avoid undue boosting of ratings by playing against weak opponents.
Logged
Granada
A&A.org Artillery
**
Posts: 125


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: May 01, 2011, 09:10:28 am »
0

Regardless, the game winner should report whether Axis or Allies were used by the winner, if a bid, to whom and for how much, and whether Low Luck or dice - that, and date.  Tracking these statistics by player matchup is the only thing that's going to support claims that Axis or Allies have an advantage, and we may as well keep good records considering it isn't much more trouble.

I do agree on this.

@Granada:  Re:  "publishing a new complete ladder" - what's the rush, Gran?   Sounds like you really wanna get moving on this!  Also, what was that about a "perfect world"?  I think you meant to reprimand me for something, but I'm afraid I missed your meaning.

What I meant was, that unless you have computer doing it for you, you have to do it yourself. So lets say we would start a thread here called Bunny and Granny Unofficial Ladder. As the start you would publish the starting ladder after lets say first 50 league games are included and counted. After then, when any two players would play a game, they would count the points change themselves and include it into the the new ladder.

So lets say you would be 3rd with 1250 points, I would be 14th with 1050 points, you would win so you would get 6 points plus and I would get 6 points less. We would post the outcome of the game, who played what, whether ther was a bid, LL etc... and we would include it into the new edition of ladder: Bunny ovecomes Zhuk with 1256 and moves to 2nd , while Granada gets down with 1044 to the 16th. Does it make sense?

As for the other thing I did not want to "reprimand" you. I just say that it needlessly complicates things to squeeze two games into one result.

As far as FICS or whatnot - I'm TOTALLY AGAINST IT.  Weak players will be very popular as stronger players try to boost their ratings, and stronger players will have a harder time finding opponents.  Any rating system that always rewards a winner with points risks this happening.

This is correct. It can be resolved easily by including a ninth category, that in fact is included in the FICS counting -- when the difference between the players is so large that if you win as the stronger player you get 0 points, while when you lose, you lose 16; with your opponent's rating changing respectively.

So after this change the proposed system would look like this:

1. difference less then 40. Winner 8 / Loser 8.
2. difference 41-100. A. Higher ranked player wins: Winner +7 / Loser -7 B. Lower ranked player wins: Winner 9 / Loser -9.
3. difference 101-180. A. Winner 6 / Loser -6; B. Winner 10 / Loser -10.  
4. difference 181-280. A. Winner 5 / Loser -5; B. Winner 11 / Loser -11.
5. difference 281-400. A. Winner 4 / Loser -4; B. Winner 12 / Loser -12.
6. difference 401-540. A. Winner 3 / Loser -3; B. Winner 13 / Loser -13.
7. difference 541-700. A. Winner 2 / Loser -2; B. Winner 14 / Loser -14.
8. difference 701-880 A. Winner 1 / Loser -1; B. Winner 15 / Loser -15.
9. difference 881 and more. A. Winner 0 / Loser 0 B. Winner 16 / Loser - 16.

Where the option A. describes the situation when the player with higher rating wins, while option B. describes the situation when the player with lower rating wins.

I think it goes in the direction of the Elo-like chess rating system, but experts like Herr KaLeun must know much much more about this then I do. Would the system I propose make a sense to you?
Logged
The Dessert Fox
A&A.org Destroyer
*****
Posts: 1615



View Profile
« Reply #22 on: May 01, 2011, 11:32:03 pm »
0

I think we would then need to make sure that players couldn't challenge so high above them that there is no point in the othe person playing. Because if a 100 challenged a 1000 then there would be no point for the 1000 playing because they can't get any points. I believe that if we use the system suggested by Granda we should make a 500 challenge limit rule. I.E. you can only challenge 500 points above you but you can challenge as far down as you like
Logged
Zhukov44
A&A.org Heavy Bomber
*
*
*
*******
Posts: 9184


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: May 02, 2011, 02:03:46 pm »
0

This is all very interesting...I'm not terribly intuitive when it comes to math so I'll have to try come back with a pot of coffee and digest all this. 

To people who use or might use the Spring 42 league....would you prefer if you just use a numerical ranking system for competition instead of W/L records?

Naturally the nice thing about an automated ladder is it does the math for us.  But if it's not TOO much maintenance then maybe we can do the math for ourselves until somebody comes along and programs an automated ladder system for us.

This also reminds me of a post Bung made recently in the TripleA War Club where he was interested in created a global A&A rankings system that went beyond just TripleA, but would incorporate the data from all the clubs.
Logged
Granada
A&A.org Artillery
**
Posts: 125


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: May 03, 2011, 02:41:59 am »
0

This is all very interesting...I'm not terribly intuitive when it comes to math so I'll have to try come back with a pot of coffee and digest all this. 

To people who use or might use the Spring 42 league....would you prefer if you just use a numerical ranking system for competition instead of W/L records?

Naturally the nice thing about an automated ladder is it does the math for us.  But if it's not TOO much maintenance then maybe we can do the math for ourselves until somebody comes along and programs an automated ladder system for us.

This also reminds me of a post Bung made recently in the TripleA War Club where he was interested in created a global A&A rankings system that went beyond just TripleA, but would incorporate the data from all the clubs.

I am definitely willing to prepare the illustration of how the rating might work with the manual counting after lets say first 20-30 games of the league are played and at least ten players are involved. 
Logged
DarthMaximus
Site Moderator
A&A.org Heavy Bomber
*
*
*******
Posts: 20825


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: May 11, 2011, 01:23:13 pm »
0

Stickied thread for you guys.

Logged
Zhukov44
A&A.org Heavy Bomber
*
*
*
*******
Posts: 9184


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: May 12, 2011, 11:20:49 am »
0

Thanks for the sticky.  

The link to the league forums on the TripleA War Club is here.  Come get your war on!
Logged
Zhukov44
A&A.org Heavy Bomber
*
*
*
*******
Posts: 9184


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: May 12, 2011, 11:21:28 am »
0

Thanks for the sticky.  

The link to the league forums on the TripleA War Club is here.  Come get your war on!

http://www.tripleawarclub.org/modules/newbb/viewforum.php?forum=16
Logged
P@nther
Site Moderator
A&A.org Heavy Bomber
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*******
Posts: 5350


Rules Deputy and Moderator


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: August 30, 2017, 05:18:05 am »
0

Outdated so unstickied today.
Logged
Pages: « 1 2
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

2017 Support Drive

Read about this support drive.
Support Level
Forum Username
Note: payee will appear as Livid Labs, LLC.
Buy Axis & Allies
  • Axis & Allies 1942 [Amazon]
  • A&A Pacific 1940 [Amazon]
  • A&A Europe 1940 [FMG]
  • [eBay]
  • [eBay]
  • A&A D-Day [Amazon]
  • A&A Battle of the Bulge [Amazon]
  • [eBay]
  • [eBay]
  • WWII Themed Combat Dice [FMG]



Axis and Allies.org Official Gold Sponsor: Historical Board Gaming

Axis & Allies.org Official Silver Sponsor: Field Marchal Games
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP © 2015 Livid Labs, LLC. All rights reserved.
Axis & Allies is registered trademark of Wizards of the Coast, a division of Hasbro, Inc.
Note: the copyright below is for the forum software only.
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!